Pitfalls in state-authorized treatment of minors

Recently a federal court in Georgia ruled that several physicians and several state officials could be sued for state-authorized treatment of a minor over his father's objection. State authorization protects providers only if it is properly obtained and the authorizing official has the power to grant the authorization in the existing circumstances.     

Euthanasia: a challenge for the forensic toxicologist

People die daily in the hospital. Mostly, they die because their illnesses were no longer treatable (natural death). Unfortunately, some people die an unnatural death, in particular, as the result of euthanasia. In contrast to the situation in most countries, in the Netherlands euthanasia is accepted by the courts under strict conditions. It can be very difficult for the legal authorities to establish whether a person has died from natural causes or from suicide, euthanasia, or murder. In addition to the pathologist and the lawyer, the toxicologist also has a number of problems in showing whether euthanasia has been carried out. These can consist of the following analytical problems: (a) interactions--the patients involved have frequently been receiving a large number of toxic and nontoxic drugs simultaneously; (b) identification--not all drugs administered are included in general screening procedures; (c) metabolites--a large number of metabolites may have accumulated toward the end of a long therapeutic regimen; and (d) determination--determination of quaternary muscle relaxants and their various metabolites, as well as other drugs, can be problematic. There are also toxicokinetic problems; because of poor kidney and liver function, low serum albumen, general malaise, and interactions between these factors and other drugs, the kinetics of a given drug can differ from normal. This makes it all the more difficult to determine whether the patient died from an accumulation of medication or from a so-called "euthanetic" drug mixture.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Technology-transfer strategies of DOE's conservation programs

This paper examines the process by which R&D results funded by the Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy (CE) of the US Department of Energy (DOE) have generated commercial applications. It looks at examples of technology-transfer procedures and activitees across three of CE's component offices that correspond to the major energy end-use sectors: transportation, buildings, and industry. On the surface, the conservation programs would appear to have little strategic consistency and, therefore, lack the clear leadership many seek in a technology-transfer program. However, as an alternative to strategic consistency, one may tailor the technology-transfer approach of each program to its unique circumstances. This paper presents case studies of such tailoring, in which the diversity of approaches mirrors the complexity of the energy end-use markets and the private-public interests that must be negotiated to successfully commercialize energy-saving innovations. The paper discusses the lessons learned about the conditions requiring adaptive design and the structures and practices that have been proven effective.     

Explaining political sophistication

Debates over the political sophistication of mass publics smolder on. The more fundamental question, however, is why people become as politically sophisticated or unsophisticated as they do. This paper develops a nonlinear simultaneous equation model to weigh explanations of three general sorts: the politicalinformation to which people are exposed, theirability to assimilate and organize such information, and theirmotivation to do so. The estimates suggest that interest and intelligence, representing motivation and ability, have major effects, but that education and media exposure, the big informational variables, do not. I consider the reasons and sketch some implications for the sophistication of mass publics, for the study of sophistication and other variables of extent, and for democratic theory.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 9–11, 1987. The data were made available by the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. Douglas Arnold, John Bolland, Thad Brown, Carol Cassel, Philip Converse, George Kateb, Jan Kmenta, Kathleen Knight, James Kuklinski, Kenneth Langton, Melvin Manis, Diana Owen, Thomas Rochon, Marianne Stewart, Paul Sniderman, James Stimson, and Herbert Weisberg have provided feedback and encouragement. James Gibson relayed his results on the intelligence measures, even as they came off the printer. Mary Lee Luskin helped in many ways. If errors remain, they are mine.